Benefit cuts proposal

[Charliechoosecarefully]

I just wanted it to have a specific thread:-

Kendall says government to consult on merging JSA and ESA benefits.

Kendall says WCA being scrapped, with Pip assessment process being used instead - will be scrapped in 2028.

Kendall says 'right to try' will let people on sickness benefits try work without immediately having benefits cut.

Kendall says UC payments being rebalanced, with standard rate going up, and some health top-ups frozen or cut.

Kendall says reassessments for people on universal credit with health top-ups to be beefed up

Kendall says universal credit claimants with most severe disabilities will not face reassessment

Kendall confirms Pip eligibility rules to be tightened, and assessment process to be reviewed - 4 pointed needed in one descriptor.

Kendall says under-22s could be prevented from claiming health top-up for universal credit

Sourced from the guardian.

was about time.... I know for a fact loads of young people claiming mental health to stay out of work ... the problem is that unfortunately as usual some innocent claimers will be affected but Im glad they are doing it! I always felt like an idiot working my ass off and people claiming were much better off .... also first thing they should do is to make jobseekers do social works like they do in australia... or force them into colleges or apprenticeship but far far too many people have been playing the system !

Except PIP is now going to be the gateway benefit to being not fit for work.
There will be people not capable of working, but because they don't have severe care needs, they will be expected to look for work and face sanctions if they don't.
PIP has always been about care needs, and nothing to do with work. The support groups of ESA/UC has been about the ability to work.
It makes no sense to conflate the two.

Thankyou for all that.

As it currently stands I will never accept a one off Wealth Tax
I believe it immoral to tax someone based on assets which include their home, which these suggested policies do of course.

In terms of yearly additional taxes on the super rich. If we could be absolutely sure that increases did not result in loss overal.
Then it’s a win.
We can’t
Just look at the numbers that have already left.

Further more. I do think it is everyone’s responsibility in society to contribute financially when they can and as much as they can.

The phrase cutting one’s nose off to spite one’s face comes to mind when we only focus on this one set in Society

meanwhile. As I currently have a crappy job of spying on the very people paying me…I will check out those groups tomorrow…..as an alternative diversion to MNet 👍 and spying 😎

They’re going after contribution based ESA because it’s based on the last two years NI contributions before starting to claim benefits. Once claimants are on it and in the support group, they can stay on it indefinitely as long as the circumstances don’t change. As a disability outreach worker I came across disabled people who were claiming contribution based ESA over twenty years after becoming unfit for work - based on a couple of years contributions. It needs to stop. And they will have a method of assessing eligibility once the WCA is scrapped - it will be via a reformed PIP assessment, the details of which are now under review via a green paper which everyone with skin in the game should be responding to.

So you are pro changing it to 4 points, in order to make the welfare cuts?

Reading posts on here some are concerned as on lower points but you think it’s right they should lose the support?

@Annoyeddd , we’re always being told that we need immigration to fill all of the job vacancies so there must be loads. Not necessarily exactly what people would choose to do but we all had to start somewhere.

Well they do, but somehow I don't think anyone's going to magic up the funding for a comprehensive course on 'how not to be a dick to disabled people'

They’re scrapping the WCA but the plans to replace it with a PIP assessment is longer term and dependent on the PIP assessment being significantly changed as a result of the proposals in the green paper - which is why everyone with skin in the game should be looking at the proposals, responding and harassing their MP’s. I agree, this government is conflating disability benefits with those for out of work sickness, but this was to achieve an end - to push through the changes. Now that they’ve been announced many media outlets are clarifying the difference between disability and sickness benefits - something that up until yesterday was very difficult for those not familiar with them to differentiate.

The "government" have gone for the elderly and disabled first because they are the easiest targets!

What jobs? Care? No one should be forced into that. Not fair on the people they are looking after.
Fruit picking? That is seasonal and the pickers live on the farm in that time.

Yep, this.

But there are genuinely disabled people who score two or three points in every category. Scoring enough points across the categories still has a very much significant impact on your day to day life. I should know, I'm one of them. I don't know why you're so insistent on suggesting that other disabled people aren't all that disabled and shouldn't be getting PIP.

The reason for people having to have UC top ups, is the lack of a living wage. How do you propose people "started weening themselves off top ups?" When most are barely getting by in receipt of UC, dependent of charities to feed and cloth themselves?
Perhaps if people were put before profit, the numbers who are claiming in work benefits would fall.

There’s no monopoly on people being dicks solely to the disabled.

Sorry to say, but it’s a hard-knock life. Rough with the smooth, and all that.

@XenoBitch , absolutely anything you should not be able to sponge from those who work and pay taxes just because you don’t fancy getting your hands dirty or need to live on a farm.

Who should lose the support ? My point is that those who get through the assessment by scoring 2 points here and 3 points there only have low level needs. That’s not what disability benefits were designed for, and it’s always been a flaw of PIP that no government wanted to tackle.

The way the assessment is designed now, claimants can end up with an enhanced award for relatively low level needs which can be supported with simple aids and appliances which don’t attract ongoing costs. The enhanced awards are meant for those with significant disability attracting significant ongoing cost. Scoring four points in any daily living activity is difficult, and indicates a higher level of disability because it requires help from another person rather than a simple aid to solve the problem. Restricting the benefit in this way stops low level claims and discourages those who don’t have significant disability from applying. This way, disability benefits are put back in the hands of those who actually need them.

So, what about non-doms, private school parents, and corporates (via NI).

Or did you forget about them?

It was Labour that was in uproar about the £20pw Covid uplift payment for people on UC being ended.
Now they want to cut a further £50pw for people deemed not able to work.

If you have a home and kids, do you think it is easy to just move to a farm and live in a caravan for a few months of the year? It might work if you are in your 20s with no ties anywhere. Not so much in your 40s when you have an established home, family and support network.

@Araminta1003 other aspects of benefits have age related rules. For example, the standard element of UC has different rates for under 25s, the housing element of UC has age related rules, and the mobility component of child DLA has 3 and 5 as age related thresholds.

Disability benefits were meant to support those with the highest need. Since 2013 they’ve been watered down to include those who don’t have significant costs. How is it possible that someone who only needs simple one off aids and appliances can qualify for the enhanced rate of an allowance meant for someone with significant ongoing disability related cost ?

Two and three points scored consistently across the board indicates low level need supported by aids and appliances which are widely available via local authorities and cheaply available commercially. Four points in any one category indicates a higher level of need requiring support from another person, which in turn indicates ongoing costs. It restricts those who are not significantly impacted and discourages those with no real disability from chancing their arm. If disability benefits are going to be sustainable they need to be put back into the hands of those who need them the most. This is an intelligent way of doing it.

The people on 2s and 3s as you’ve outlined will lose support.

There are posters on those points who are concerned but you’re convinced they should be filtered out?

OK but those are proportionate in many ways because minimum wage is also less. But whether you are disabled at 18 or 55 with the exact same disability, surely the cost to deal with that exact same disability is going to be the same?

But there has to balance. Ask the question in reverse: in what world does the welfare state increase by £6b in a few years. This isn’t govt money. It’s not ‘free’ it’s paid by all of us who do work and pay taxes.

The best way round that is provide social care instead ad of money. And where there are legitimate expenses they are paid as a grant or refunded on invoice.

take the ‘cash kerching’ out of they system and you remove the abuse and incentives.

They won't just lose support... they will be classed as fit to work.